middle east/west asia – extreme or simply violent?

There is a rather common view that pits authoritarian nationalism against authoritarian – indeed, political – religionism in west asia/middle east. As if the 2 kind of authoritarianisms are 2 extremes.

Are they?

* It seems like both adhere to being authoritarian – hence violent.

* It also seems that both nationalism and religionism are not mutually exclusive. Indeed in iran & zionist palestine, the religious nationalism is in power or very darn near it..

Going back to the article – link above – it seems the writer deduced that democracy comes hard for west asiatic people because of two extremes. I can not agree because the “extremes” he is talking about are just sides of a same coin – the authoritarian and violent one.. I’d say that it might be indeed that democracy requires more and more attempts in the middle east because the area is in the grips of violent instead of civil culture.A culture that values power over civility, violent ways of keeping social life, fear and intimidation to solve and resolve difficulties – rather than via civil – often discursive – and fear challenging means.

how can pixels visualise fearss triumph over freedom?

The image of:

is rather strange in terms of both the normality of face pixelation and the uniqueness of who this pixelation is aimed at.

The pixelation of facial features is, in my point of view, an interesting yet somehow forgotten element of contemporary portraiture. Perhaps more than the “selfie”,pixelation is in itself an uber portrait that emphesises the pixels in digital images, and the sense of reticence-dread-to-self’s-safety-fear with their wide spread-ability.

In that way, perhaps the if 1pixel portrait should be revisited?

The uniqueness of this image, in my mind is that while power holders knows who these people are, where they served in the army, etc., the pixels are because these people rather remaining un-recognised by their fellow citizens. The fear is not from violence of the state, but that of its citizens – or some of them..
In that way,perhaps this is an image of society that has adopted fear, intimidation and violence as its mode of operation. Its a society that has married elements of state and citizenry violence. In that way, perhaps this could be argued to be a very unique mode of authoritarianism?

selling/letting/offering, a bit like an if?

Just bumped into the letting a flat 3mx3m for £255pcm. The surprise in mind was that some might have actually seriously contemplated the idea. ie if there is an offer, maybe someone will inevitably actually take it?

The being an offer, an if flat of 3mx3m in and of itself does not seem like forcing the issue. However, in a violent environment, it does force the issue because the size/price ratio works to increase larger proporties prices and makes it more plausible that a person desperate for a place – might actually contemplate the offer?

In that sense that is not a genuine offer for choice. There is a punishment attached. If you do – or not – get the place, then it will raise other properties prices.

In that sense it can be argued that its a form, an act of an offer rather than a fearless offer..?

freedom with objects is a knott?

Just bumped into http://freedomdefined.org/Definition – am struck by how restrictive it feels while clearly intent on being serious for pushing for freedom.
Am curious about the sequence.. The restrictive sense (object, define), the cross with intent (we really want all to be free), and the interval – perhaps disconnected interval – via that crossing.

The other element that came to mind is of retribution – isn’t freedom = being fearless about retributional exchange operations?
eg –
if you take this idea and make ot into stuff i disagree – i might engage in exchange, but will Not attempt to harm you!

However, the question might also go the other way around:
if you use this element that is linked to me, will you do it in a way that might feel – or be – harmful to me?
Will you help me remain fearless of you?

data on the web is too static

for the internet?

Following the day we fight back‘s instance in brighton, some thoughts came to me regarding critique of how we do stuff.

It seems for me, that at least to some partial extent, the ability of entities like google to use our content/data is precisely because We tend to imagine the data in static/object terms. For example, we might imagine this writing as data that is in effect residing statically on a server somewhere – hence can be easily indexed, and accessed time and again while receiving the same data at all times..

Does it have to be like that?

In ’98 I was involved with a project called “building bable 2” in Coventry university, as far as I can recall.. One of my contributions to the event was a live application of simulating a net-bot which operated as an avatar. That “organism” was the representative of a person in the digital “space”, and linked between the various physicalities.. (the digital and organic) Hence a person did not have to have a “web-page” to be “online” nor required all their information to be readily available at all times on the network. A person, for example, could get a request from their avatar-bot for information about some subject, and then, they could relay that data directly to the person that wanted it – via the bot-avatar.
In a sense, the bot-avatar was more of a live, active, moving and thinking link that enabled people to use data as when and how They fancied – as well as having a digital entity to do some mundane stuff for them.. eg check for information about subjects/topics.. Negotiate information exchanges with other bots, etc..

I got reminded of these ideas when attempted to consider stuff rhythmically and the idea of personal servers. (eg on mobile devices)
Rhythmically – why do I need to had a constant instant information/data always online? Isn’t the always on more appropriate for a more active “application” rather than data?
What if I placed my data on a *Secure* device of myown – perhaps something like blackphone??!! – and then use various means that it can be accessed at various times..?

Perhaps I should experiment and use this static data place to report..? 😉

—————————-

Had a bit of a feedback from someone am not sure fancies their name here.. The feedback goes to the tune of:
an interesting idea aharon but:
– is it not kind of taking us back to tv..? (with program schedules)
– power play that comes with rhythms and how might that affect information?

OK.. to be fair, the idea here is a modified version of why i told the said person.. Forgot about this idea at the time and was talking only about personal servers that operate when people fancy to turn them on..

However, I think there are still some relevant issues/questions that prickle my mind from the feedback..

To begin with, a meta prickle.. It seems – perhaps wrongly – that I gave an impression of sort of cure-it-all-panacea. Nope what so ever. The idea is to try some new ways and bump into new problems/difficulties/etc.
If the question is then Why this particular new way, then my reply would be that because this dynamic imagination does not preclude today’s static – while today’s static has a bias – if it was a person – that makes dynamic data imagination if not entirely impossible, harder to do..
So this is not a rhythmism – be rhythmic or be gone/die. This, I think is more subtle and hence radical – rather than extreme – than that. The claim is that via rhythmic imagination we can include the static, it is just element that has a slower rhythmic nature. However, while imagining only in static, rhythmic imagination is having a hard time to Be. (..am making a bit of allusions to democratic processes because it seems very similar to me.. For example saying that we strive towards ever growing equality between people, does not prevent prejudicially some groups/units/companies to have an unequal hierarchy. However if society is to have a per-ordained hierarchy of one kind or another – it is constitutionally prejudiced towards certain elements and prevents having non hierarchical groupings.. As they, by nature, will question the very social constitution..)

The TV thing..
Not sure exactly what is meant by the scheduling problem.. I take it meaning/reffering to times. eg, if you want to watch X program, you want to “catch it” on time.
Well.. There are a few elements here, imho..]
Phil talks a fair bit about how social media is just like the old tv.. The gist of it, as I seem to understand, is that with the activity streams you get something very akin to scheduling, in a sense.. Indeed, sales people who try to “catch” audience for certain topics, time their posts for certain periods of the day..
However, in the idea above – with the link-avatar-bot entity – as well as the one when a person just turns on/off their personal server, it is a question of contacting rather then schedualing, I think.. Because information on the server from yesterday, might still be there, pending on the authors will. Just like in posts here on this blog, I can turn some data on/off public..
The difference is that if this data was not, as it currently is, on a server somewhere in california, and subject to some laws and regulations that people might find somehow palatable there and I have no say in. Or that despite the fact it is supposed to be “my server”, the data is very much open to the company that runs it, and they can be pushed here and there by all sorts of other organisations.. Or they could just burn and all my data – if it wasnt in fact saved here with me – could be gone for ever..
Instead of that, situation, I could have a local server that will perhaps forego the Always instantly On for anyone, and just send signals when it is on so people could check it.. If one doesn’t feel like, or can not check at X time – they could later on..
Also, with the link-bot-avatar-entity idea, it can be that your online-data-link presence will gather the new info from X databases, and/or in relation to Y topic, and then simply relay to you as and when You fancy..
I think perhaps the problems with such an imagination will be different.. I think they could be of more person-to-person nature.. However, I much rather these than systematic preclusions..

Power.. Hummm.. Again.. not entirely sure I fully understand the intent in the comment, however, I think that power is not rhythmically inherent.. eg all the geographic power relations.. Therefore I think it can be said that indeed this idea does not rid us – in a sort of inherent fashion – from power plays.. I personally doubt there are some inherent elements that rid us from power games.. While it doesn’t dis-allow people using power games however, I think it can be claimed that it doesn’t require power games, hence culturally it is, at least, neutral in that regard..
Perhaps, and hopefully am wrong and there are ways to culturally support fearlessness without power.. I do not yet know that we might have a clue.. Even the use, my use, of the sense of fear, links directly to questions of power.. 🙁

where do we search from when we use freedom?

ok.. this is an honest-intended-felt question..

okturtles (good luck to them), claim that “Freedom has a Namecoin”. That via Hiding/Encrypting messages, we will be free to exchange ideas and express ourselves as we might please – or there about. (they are not very precise in how freedom is, errr, defined.. kind of cool when you think that freedom is precisely to be and Be undefined..)

However, do I really want to live in a society where & when to feel – and perhaps not be – free is dependent upon hiding from power? Sure, sometimes I might fancy stating stuff anonymously – and that can be a part of a number of sequences – but I’d like to be free to say Hey I think xyz, without having to suffer fears.
My worry, hopefully unjustified and mistaken, is that precisely via goodoers projects like okturtules, what in fact we are doing socially and culturally, is legitimising fear of fearless speech. We say that instead of attempting to evolve a society that slowly pushes fear away, we’d rather have sort of “instant freedom”, a quick and dirty shot that makes us feel free without actually being free. In a sense, enshrining the violent activities that prompt the need to Be free in the 1st place..

Also noticed that this freedom might come at a cost, or an escalating costs via kickstarter push.. Its not up there yet, so will keep an eye..